Thought provoking back court question.
 

During the first quarter A1 dribbles the ball across the division line and into the frontcourt. A1 then attempts an "alley-oop" pass to A2, near the basket. The ball strikes the ring untouched and ricochets directly into the backcourt. A1 hustles into the backcourt and is the first person to touch the ball after it went into the backcourt. The covering official rules a backcourt violation. Is the official correct?

This is another interesting question from the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association in South Carolina.

I will post the answer and reason later today.

I'm not calling this, but I can see how the official might since he didn't consider the pass to be a try. I'm calling it a try and therefore ruling this play legal.

Let me guess......

Catawba is gonna say that it's </b>not</b> a "try" by rule, and team control was thus never lost. Iow, yes, it's gonna be a backcourt violation.

For the record, as far as I'm concerned, if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo. Ergo, loss of team control and <b>NO</b> backcourt violation. <i>Raison d'Etre?</i>---I ain't a mind reader. And neither is any other official anywhere either as far as I'm concerned.

It's strictly a judgement call as to whether it was a pass or a try. I don't know how Catawba can give out a supposedly <b>definitive</b> ruling on a judgment call, no matter how they rule.

Especially since if it goes in, instead of bouncing off the rim, we're going to give 3 points.

Scrapper, good point here.

Is that really relevant as to whether we call it a "try" or not?

Casae book play 5.2.1SitB says "A ball that is thrown into a team's own goal from behind the three-point arc scores three points, <b>regardless of whether the thrown ball was a try or not</b>".

In this case, you got 2 options:
1) If it's a try---> no backcourt violation.
2) If it's not a try ----> backcourt violation.

And....whatever option you pick is based on the calling official's judgement solely. If the ball hits the ring, it's a "try" as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to be a mindreader to rule otherwise, and I don't profess to be <b>that</b> good. :)

Let me think
 

"No, coach, despite the fact that it was launched toward the basket and hit the rim, I don't think it was a try. I have to go with the violation!" Pretty hard sell to me. NO call.

No more relevant than if it simply hits the rim. . . Didn't you recently say:

;)

Yup, sure did. That's because I'm deeming it a try, not being Carnac the Magnificent.

But....whether we give it it 3 if it goes or not <b>isn't</b> dependant on it being a "try" though. Iow, the "try" aspect just ain't relevant when it's used to determine whether a "3" was scored or not, but it is is relevant when it comes to determining whether a back court violation occurs or not. See what I'm getting at? Completely different. Apples and oranges. Yankees and BoSox.

I agree with the others that it's not a violation.

But, I'm using the case play where A1 dribbles, stops, throws the ball off his own backboard, then starts another dribble (legal play) as my justification.

Well, no duh. (Can you tell I have a pre-teen daughter?) But what IS the same is that you're considering it a try, regardless of the thrower's intent. Same thing with the 3-point basket.

So if A1 crosses the timeline and launches a 40 foot "ally oop" and is whacked on the arm during this "ally oop" try:

1) does he get 3 FT shots if the ball hits the rim?
2) does he get 3 Ft shots if the ball falls harmlessly to the ground?

Or 3), does the official suck air and not call a foul?

OK, I get you now.

A pre-teen daughter, eh? I'll bet you have a dog too. I can tell just from your posts that you're probably an animal lover as well as a devoted father.

Case book play 4.15.4SitC(c) is the one that Bob is referencing.

Again, it's a judgement call, Coach.

How do you really argue any judgement call?

FIBA 15.1 goes: "A shot for a field goal or a free throw is when the ball is held in a player’s hand(s) and is then thrown through the air towards the opponents' basket."

This would surely qualify as a "shot for a field goal".

What do american rules say?

Reply to back court question.
 

The answer as posted on the Catawba River Basketball Officials Association board:

Answer: The official was correct. Although the situation would have resulted in a three point goal if the ball had passed through the goal, this would have been under the rule (5.2.1) regarding "a thrown ball from the field by a player from behind the team's own 19 foot, 9 inch arc." Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass, by rule (4.12.4) team control did not end. Therefore, Team A, who had control, was the last to touch the ball before it went backcourt and the first to touch after it went backcourt. By rule (Rule 9.9.1) this is a backcourt violation.

Not in my game, it's not. I'm ruling this a try. Sorry, Catawba.

I agree completely. We're not mind readers, and as JR, Bob & others have pointed out, there's plenty of case play to support a no call.

That's the bottom line imo. You can't give a completely <b>definitive</b> answer to what is basically a judgement call right from the git-go. Unfortunately, Catawba is trying to do just that.

An analogy would be to look at a play and say "There was contact on that play. It <b>must</b> be a foul". The correct answer however is that there was contact on the play, but it's only a foul if the contact was judged as <b>not</b> being incidental. And that's up to the calling official solely, no one else.

JR it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the ruling given, but rather have a big problem with the Catawba people categorically stating that this action is not a try for goal. In other words they are removing a necessary element of judgment by the official as to whether this action was a pass or a try.

Oddly enough, you seem to being guilty of the same thing when you state "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo." I would rather see you not use that criterion, but judge each individual play on its own.

For example, consider the following play:
A1 drives the end line and reaches a position in the lane directly under the backboard when he ends his dribble. He spots teammate A2 open near the top of the key, so he jumps and throws the ball in that direction. The ball strikes the underside of the front of the ring and due to the change in direction sails past A2 and into the backcourt. A2 is then the first player to touch the ball.

Surely you would deem this play a backcourt violation, right?

What part of <b>"IN MY OPINION"</b> did you fail to comprehend, Nevada.

Comprehension 101.

I said that it could be called <b>either</b>. I also said that I, JR, would <b>personally</b> call it a try and <b>NO</b> backcourt violation. I don't have a problem at all with anybody else having a different opinion, and saying that in <b>their</b> opinion, it wasn't a try and therefore it was a back court violation. I do have a major problem with the people at Catawba turning a <b>judgement</b> call into a <b>non-judgement</b> call though, which is what they are doing.

And your example is a <b>judgement</b> call also, and could be ruled either way too. Why? Because maybe you are able to, but the majority of officials can't read minds.

Yeahbut he stopped that when the ASPCA took him to court and got an injunction...

OmyGod......


When I said "animal lover", I really had no idea. :eek:

I changed my mind. He can't be a Yankees fan. He <b>has</b> to be a BoSox fan.

Shoulda known......:rolleyes:

You are failing to recognize that your OPINION is even more declarative than the ruling of the Catawba people.

Catawba is actually being much more reasonable than you are, since they are allowing for the official to judge this action to be a pass. You are flatly stating that it is always a try. That is just wrong.

Catawba writes, "Since the official ruled the thrown ball to be a pass" then this is a backcourt violation.

JR says, "if the ball hits the rim, it's a try imo" no matter what, I'm not calling backcourt.

So could you please show me a rule that says that? Where is it in any of the NFHS books that just because the ball hits the ring it is automatically a try?

In short, your opinion is unreasonable and does not allow for this play to be called properly. YOU, not Catawba, are the one turning a judgment call into a non-judgment call by stating that this is always a try for goal when you are the official.

Now go back to Comprehension 100, since you are obviously not ready for the 101 level yet.:D

Catawba is saying that the <b>ONLY</b> possible ruling is that the play is a pass. They are saying that there is <b>never</b> any judgement involved.

I'm saying that it could be a <b>pass</b> OR a <b>try</b> depending on each individual official's personal judgement. Then I gave you <b>MY</b> personal judgement. If my personal judgement is that it's a try, then I can't be wrong on that straight judgement call.

You still fail to comprehend that.

I don't believe that that is an accurate assessment of their ruling.

Clearly Catawba is basing its ruling on the official's decision as to whether this was a pass or a try. YOU are the one who won't allow for it to be anything other than a try.

Un-freaking believable.:rolleyes:

Catawba issued a ruling that it is <b>always</b> a pass and therefore it is <b>always</b> a violation. I disagree with that. That is <b>their</b> ruling only. They do not have any definitive rules citation to make that particular ruling imo. End of story.

I'm done, Nevada. Find somebody else for the rest of this one.

You do need to re-take reading comprehension 101.

He is saying the official is free to rule on the play as his judgement dictates, either a pass or a try. He then says as he reads *this* play he would rule it a try.

NFHS rule 4-41-2:
" A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team's own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official's judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal..."

The definition of a pass is in NFHS rule 4-31:
"A pass is movement of the ball caused by a player who throws, bats or rolls the ball to another player."

Without seeing the play, I don't think that anyone can say for sure what the correct ruling is. The official has to determine whether A1 directed the ball toward A2 (which would be a pass) or toward team A's basket (which would be a try for field goal).

From the description given, I would probably rule that A1 was trying for goal. Since the ball hit the rim, A1 must have been directing the ball toward his/her team's basket. However, without actually seeing the play, it is hard to say for sure what the correct ruling is.

All I know is, that it must really suck to officiate in Catawba!:D

The case play referenced earlier (4.15.4 sit c) tells us that the throw in question is a try, so I don't see that it applies here. The whole deal here is whether it is a try or not. The OP in this thread gives the impression (to me anyway) that the throw comes from near the division line. If time is not an issue, that alone would make one doubt that it was a try. Look at the whole picture. If there was a guy near the rim attempting to catch this ball, I would have no problem calling it a pass, so therefore, the violation is correct.

I don't know, just because there's a fella ready to catch the ball doesn't mean much. May have been going up just to make sure. I'm leaning towards a more loose philosophy anyway, so if I can justify a no-call, I'm going down that road.

The guy trying to catch it alone would be a relatively small piece of the puzzle. After further consideration, I decided that the OP did not specify where the throw came from, but it was mentioned that he had crossed the division line to let us know that the ball had achieved frontcourt status prior to the release. BUT, if indeed this was ruled a pass, where the player was when the ball was released would not matter in this situation. I think Coach P hit the nail on the head on this one. If A1 was fouled in this situation, we must decide whether it was a try or not, regardless of what it hit or didn't hit. In the original sit in this post, we would actually have the luxury of a little more time to make this decision. The biggest factor in this decision, imo, would be the mechanics/body language of the player making the pass/try. For most, not all, players, the mechanics on the two are quite different. I would treat this like the player slapping the backboard. If I can possibly imagine this was a legitimate block attempt, no call. In this case, if I can imagine that it was a try, no call.

This one sailed right over my head.

Points can be scored without a try so that adds nothing to the discussion.

________________________________________________

Dude, is anyone even remotely sober when you guys in the Catawba River Association get together and think this stuff up?

I'm just sitting here, eating my popcorn, while you guys discuss this silly play.

It's simple...if you judge the nthrow a try, it's not a BC violation. If you judge it not to be a try, it's a violation.

You could argue forever whether it's a try or not. No one will win.

I'll buy that. Main reason I posted was that an overwhelming majority seemed to say "IT IS A TRY!" (cuz I said so even) This judgment doesn't seem any tougher to make than countless others we are asked to make every night.

Um....well....yeah....

That was kinda my point too.:)

There is <b>no</b> definitive answer, Catawba notwithstanding.

Unless you're Woddy and then it's definitely a try because the ball hit the ring. :rolleyes:

Doesn't everyone's old friend common sense come into play here somewhere? A guy dribbles over the division line, launches what is described as an "alley oop pass", and it hits the ring. Its already been defined as a pass....why is everyone changing something that has been determined?

The action has been judged a pass...it was stated as such by the op...so it HAS to be a backcourt violation.

Sigh.

Common sense is <b>knowing</b> that you can't read a player's mind. It's a judgement call by the calling official as to whether it actually was an alley-oop pass or a try. The concept shouldn't be that difficult.

How about this:

1. IF an official were to judge that the throw was a pass, then the correct call in this sitch would be BC violation.

2. IF endorsing the principle in (1) was ALL that Catawba intended when they claimed that the official in the OP was "correct," then they were right. That official did in fact rule the throw a pass, so was correct to call the violation.

3. OTOH, if Catawba intended to claim that in all such plays the throw must be judged a pass rather than a try, then they are usurping official judgment: some of us think that any thrown ball that strikes the rim (from above) counts as a try, others decline to second guess the calling official, and still others are reluctant to rule without seeing the play.

4. If Catawba is usurping official judgment when it claims that all such cases must be ruled passes, then parity of reasoning suggests that it would equally usurp official judgment to claim that all such cases must be ruled tries.

5. Hypothetically, any Yankees fan who might claim that he personally would rule these cases tries would NOT be committed to the claim in (4), since he would seem not to be saying that they must be called thus. Were such a (merely hypothetical) Yankees fan to hint, suggest, or argue that those who disagreed with him were mistaken, then I believe he would be committed to the claim in (4), and thus be inconsistent.

Hope this helps clarify matters.

After wading through all that gobbleydegook, nothing changes. It still comes back to every individual official's judgement. One Yankee fan might call it a pass. Another Yankee fan might call it a try. This Yankee fan has already stated what his own <b>personal</b> judgement would be. All three Yankees fans are correct in their calls.

My only question on this tempest in a teapot is this:

You mean to tell me you can't tell by watching a player whether he was attempting a try or a pass?: eek:

I actually had this call last season during a JV game. It was readily apparent on the fast break that the player was trying to lob the player ahead of the play but threw the ball too far. It hit the rim and went into the backcourt. I could tell it was a pass and called the violation.

It would've been easier to let it go as its one of those rulings that because coaches and crowd don't know all the nuances of the rules. But the easy call isn't the right call. The coach was upset. I explained to him the rule and my judgement and he accepted it. The crowd never did, but who cares.

And I'm not trying to win either but I'm just trying to think objectively how I would react as Trail official in this case. Trail is monitoring the player and ball which just crossed the division line. Most alley-oop passes are one hand running push passes which look pretty much like running one hand shots--and because this pass/try is pretty much on line with the goal (alley-oop). , I'm thinking that my first reaction in the case as described (actually regardless the shooter/passer's form) is going to be the three point try mechanic and as the mechanic goes up I have therefore judged this effort to be a try and I don't think I would be inclined to change my judgment.

Absolutely. One should be able to judge, in almost all cases, if a play from 30 feet out is a pass or a shot. In the original post, it was clearly stated that it was a pass. Violation. End of story.

Huh????

Most Alley-oops I see are two handed (Chest passes) as they are more accurate. Certainly the one in my case was a chest pass.